Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1887-10-27
THE CONDEMNED ANARCHISTS
Their Cases Before the Supreme
Court of the United States.

Gen. Roger A. Pryor, j. Randolph Tuck.
er, Gen. Butler. Mr.. Black and Mr.. Solo
mon, counsel for the condemned Anarch-
lists OF Chicago. appeared before the su-
preme Court of the United States in Wash.
ington, to move for a writ OF error.
Alter r~eciting the history Of the case and
stating that several of the prisoners were
now under sentence of death, Mr.. Pryor
said:
He would call the attention OF the court
to only two points, which he relied upon
to show that the easea at the bar presented
federal questions, and that such acts
tax jurisdiction OF it and to grant the
writ OF error prayed for. The first OF these
points related to the jury by
which the prisoners were tried.
The legislature OF Illinois passed
in March, 1874, that is, after the adop-
tion of tho Fourteenth amendment to the
constitution, a law to regulate and govern
the empanelment Of juries in the state
courts. BY virtue of that law a jury for
the trial OF a criminal case might be made
up, in part at least, Of jurors who hid
formed an opinion with regard to the guilt
or innocencs OF the persons accused-jur.
ors who we're partial, and even ~prejudiced
men. The awm made il possible to put in
to the jury box men who had formed an
opinion as to the prisoners guilt which
could not be removed, except by strong evil
dence. This, he believed, had been done in
the case under consideration, and the pe-
t~itioners asserted that this statute and the
effect given TO it in the courts below had
deprived them Of their rights, and was
about to deprive item of their lives with
out the due process of law guaranteed
by the federal constitution.
What is that statute Mr.. Pryor" in
quired the chief justice.
Mr.. Pryor sent to the chief justice, ana
then read aloud that part of the act OF the
Illinois legislature, approved March IL,
1874. which provides:
1t shall not be a cause OF challenge that
q Juror has read in the newspapers an nc
count OF the commission OF the crime with
which the prisoner is charged il such Juror
shall state on oath that he believes he can
render an impartial verdict according to
the law n the evidence. In the trial OF
any criminal case the fact that a nerson
called as a Juror has formed an opinion or
impression based upon rumor or upon
newspaper statements (about the truth oil
which he unsurpassed no opinion) shailnot
disqualify him to serve as a iuror in suchcase
If he shall upon oath state that he believes
he can iairly and impartially render a ver-
dict therein in accordance with the law
and the evidence, and the court shall be
satisfied OF the truth OF such statement.
Said Mr.. Pryor:
1t appears on record that this statute
was called in question in the trial court as
repugnant to the provisions both OF the
federal constitution and OF the constitu-
ton OF the Illinois supreme court, and the
latter aiterward sustained the judgment.
Tbe7chief justice remarked that the only
question for this court was whether the
statute was constitutional. II the court
erred in its administration OF the statute
that was a question for the state courts.
Mr.. Pryor replied:
The action of the state court was the ac-
ton of the state. II the statute was ad
ministered unfairly it was state action,
and that brought il within the jurisdiction
OF this court. 1t must be so, because
IT q state pass n seemingly fair
statute and then ignore it or administer it
unfairly, then the protection which the
fourteenth amendment isintended to give |
is denied. To try a man for his life by a
partial jury is not and never was due pro-
cess OF law.
Mr.. Pryor's second point was:
The petitioners had been compelled in the
trial court to be witnesses against them
selves. Some of them were on the stand. |
and in spite OF the protests OF their eouE-
sci they were compelled to submit to an
un~restrained cross-examination and to
themselves. Compelling a IMAM to !
testify against himself is not due process az
Furthermore. after their arrest the
police, without any process OF law, broke
open their private desks and extracted
from them letters, and other eliminating
evidence, and these letters, gotten without
due process Of law, were used against
them. When the objection was raised it
was overruled, and an exception was TAX
en-.
-.
The Chief Justice-Can you point US to
the precise exception that was taken?
Mr.. Pryor read extracts from the record
covering the seizure OF Spies papers with
out a search warrant and the use OF them
him, and maintained that this
was virtually compelling him TO testify
himself in violation OF the fifth
amendment to the constitution.
The chief justice held a brief whispered
consultation with several Of the associate